Finally: US Supreme Court agrees to settle gay marriage dispute

[Chef Ramsay]

Setting the stage for its most significant ruling ever on gay rights, the U.S. Supreme Court said Friday it would resolve the state-by-state battle over same-sex marriage.

The justices said they will decide cases from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee, where state officials are defending laws that limit marriage to a man and a woman.

The high court is expected to hear arguments in late April and will probably issue a decision by the end of June.

The case could lead to a landmark ruling on whether gay and lesbian couples have a right to marry nationwide under constitutional protections for individual rights and equal treatment.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-gay-marriage-20150116-story.html#page=1

Predictions or bets?

[1714916910]

1714916910

[1714916910]

1714916910

[TheButterZone]

Lower courts will continue to rebel with bullshit like "[SCOTUS] will need to say so more plainly".

[pungopete468]

Marriage isn't protected by the Constitution; it's the religious aspect and statement of marriage that is protected.

The SCOTUS will likely view marriage as a statement, or in other words an expression. Marriage will be a protected form of free speech, and the government will be forced to recognize it as such by issuing marriage licenses to any two people who request one.

[Chef Ramsay]

Theoretically per the constitution, there is no federal power to deal with such an issue like marriage which imo, shouldn't be allowed between any number of people but only recognized by those that choose to. However, the founding document is meaningless in many instances so oh well. There should be no government marriage licenses and people should just contract with each other on their own and steer clear of community pockets that don't take kindly to their arrangements.

[grendel25]

Yes, it took conflict of lower courts to force the hand of the US Supreme Court.  Have you heard them discuss this sort of thing in the past?  Asking questions like where do you draw the line on what's and acceptable relationship or what can be considered a marriage.  They overcomplicate it.  In a way it seems like a no brainer slam dunk in favor of human rights but who knows.

[username18333]

The truth is that the State is a conspiracy designed not only to exploit, but above all to corrupt its citizens… Henceforth, I shall never serve any government anywhere.

State, opting to print less bread, has introduced another act.

[BitCoinNutJob]

I love how the gov wants to get involved in people's relationships like a jealous ex partner or something. 

[Rishblitz]

why does the government have to get in peoples business just let people believe what they want to.

[TECSHARE]

The government should have no involvement in marriage period, including heterosexual marriages.

[Rishblitz]

The government should have no involvement in marriage period, including heterosexual marriages.

what happened to separation of the church and state yet the state can force a church to wed someone if they want to or not.

[Chef Ramsay]

This is yet one faction lobbying the state against another faction that has used the state to keep the former down for a long time. The end result is that the state is the one calling the shots and not private associations of voluntary contracting individuals. The statists (social conservatives in this instance) will likely see the power of the state bear down on them as the baton changes hands as was expected after a generational societal shift. Live by the state's sword for a while, then get stuck with it. I'm at the point where this particular vestige of religious freedom (not having to acknowledge gay marriage) isn't at the top of my list and is basically the rooster coming home to roost because you went to bed with vultures (the state) for so long and now times have changed and you're on the outs. On one hand, I think the LGB community has gone too far at times but you can hardly blame them for bringing out the so-called knives against a bunch (evangelicals, socons, etc) that have targeted them for far too long. As it is, most of the latter are one or two issue voters and their main mea culpa in recent times has been the gay community. So, in the end, liberty rises and falls because those that sought it used the state to be their protector.

[Rishblitz]

This is yet one faction lobbying the state against another faction that has used the state to keep the former down for a long time. The end result is that the state is the one calling the shots and not private associations of voluntary contracting individuals. The statists (social conservatives in this instance) will likely see the power of the state bear down on them as the baton changes hands as was expected after a generational societal shift. Live by the state's sword for a while, then get stuck with it. I'm at the point where this particular vestige of religious freedom (not having to acknowledge gay marriage) isn't at the top of my list and is basically the rooster coming home to roost because you went to bed with vultures (the state) for so long and now times have changed and you're on the outs. On one hand, I think the LGB community has gone too far at times but you can hardly blame them for bringing out the so-called knives against a bunch (evangelicals, socons, etc) that have targeted them for far too long. As it is, most of the latter are one or two issue voters and their main mea culpa in recent times has been the gay community. So, in the end, liberty rises and falls because those that sought it used the state to be their protector.

truer words never spoken before.

[98problems]

I personally think they will likely punt on the issue. Traditionally marriage has been defined as between a man and a women. Sure there are religious aspects to this, however there are also traditional aspects to this.

I personally would like to see the tax benefits of marriage taken away (as well as welfare benefits). If this were to happen I would say that neither side would be anywhere near as passionate about the subject as they are

[Rishblitz]

I personally think they will likely punt on the issue. Traditionally marriage has been defined as between a man and a women. Sure there are religious aspects to this, however there are also traditional aspects to this.

I personally would like to see the tax benefits of marriage taken away (as well as welfare benefits). If this were to happen I would say that neither side would be anywhere near as passionate about the subject as they are

I think the pro marriage would still want to keep marriage sacred due to principle.

[Razick]

Regardless of how you feel about the issue, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to restrict the states on this matter. The gay marriage debate must be settled by the electorate and their representatives in each state. The courts have no right to engage in judicial activism and overturn our elected officials on this one.

Note that I am saying that the courts can neither force NOR prevent states from adopting their own laws on this issue.

That being said, I have a feeling they will misconstrue the 14th Amendment and ignore the 10th along with the rest of the Constitution. Judicial activism trumps the plain language of the Supreme Law of the Land these days.

[TheButterZone]

Any state which ratified the 14th Amendment shouldn't have done so if it wanted to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Razick]

Any state which ratified the 14th Amendment shouldn't have done so if it wanted to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Gay marriage is not an equal protection of the laws issue. That's why I said misconstrue. Restrictions on who you can marry apply to everyone equally, regardless of sexual orientation. If gay marriage is constitutionally protected, so is polygamy and the right to marry a minor. All rights have limits, and in this case those limits apply to everyone equally.

This 14th Amendment was written to prohibit the denial of right to someone because of their race, ethnicity, religion, sex, etc. It was not meant to prohibit restrictions that apply equally to all persons.

The power to regulate marriage is a power of the sovereign states.

[TheButterZone]

Polygamy (insofar as all the spouses consent) and minor marriage bans (insofar as there is consent) are absolutely unconstitutional as well, IMO.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/judge-finalizes-ruling-declaring-part-of-utah-polygamy-ban-unconstitutional-lets-man-live-with-his-four-wives-125597/

[Razick]

Polygamy (insofar as all the spouses consent) and minor marriage bans (insofar as there is consent) are absolutely unconstitutional as well, IMO.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/judge-finalizes-ruling-declaring-part-of-utah-polygamy-ban-. constitutional-lets-man-live-with-his-four-wives-125597/

The fact is the words in the Constitution don't exist in a vacuum. They have definitions, contexts, and purposes that were obviously intended when they were written. You might be able to make a good argument for legalizing those things (in a way I actually sympathise with you on these things and gay marriage, but I also support limitations on federal government and the proper role of the courts), but that doesn't make them Constitutional. The Constitution says certin thing with defined, unchaning meanings which do not change simply because you think they should.

There is nothing in the Constitution that protects the "right" to marry anyone but a single member of the opposite spouse. In fact, I don't think the Constitution protects marriage at all (the 9th Amendment only prohibits the government from using the Constitution to justify infringing on rights not mentioned.)

I think you may be assuming that since the right to regulate marriage is not enumerated in the Constitution, the government lacks that authority, am I correct? The problem with that argument is that marriage is regulated on a state level, and is therefore not subject to the enumerated powers, which apply only to the federal government.

The power to regulate marriage was never delegated to the federal government in accordance with the 10th amendment, and therefore lies with the states.

Edit: The judge in the case you linked ruled based on religious freedom. First of all, I don't think I agree with him there, but more relevant to this topic is that gay marriage is not a matter of religious freedom.

[freedomno1]

Were opening a new can of worms.
In doing so creating another schism in world politics besides the current religious one and for good reason, the US will change its policy to try and force other countries to perceive gay rights as a human right and punish them accordingly for dissent.

In other words they will push the envelope much faster than other countries are willing to take and I see this being an exacerbating global issue in the years to come.

That said it Looks like the gay right fighters will win this one in my opinion

I'll go with Wilkons statement on freedom to dissent
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=929195.msg10201032#msg10201032

It is increasingly clear that the freedom of speech often works only at that bare minimum — protecting us from imprisonment and decapitation by governments, but not from social and economic destruction by our fellow Americans, including government officials.

Take the case of Kelvin Cochran, Atlanta’s former fire chief. Cochran was fired by Mayor Kasim Reed last week after 30 years of service for writing a book on morality, with a passage on homosexuality, in his private time for a Bible study group.

Another mayor who has targeted those with certain beliefs is Houston Mayor Annise Parker, who last October moved to subpoena sermons from pastors who had opposed an ordinance that would make public bathrooms gender-neutral. After a national outcry, Parker backed-off.

Two leading businesspeople have also faced the wrath of the outrage industry. Last year, Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich — who along with 52 percent of California voters backed the pro-marriage Proposition 8 in 2008– was forced to resign over his beliefs.

Memorably in 2012, Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy was the object of public rage for maintaining traditional views on marriage, as well as the target of vindictive mayors Tom Menino of Boston and Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, who threatened to exile his business.

It’s not just public officials who engage in this behavior. Marquette University’s Professor John McAdams was banned from campus for blog posts criticizing fellow faculty member Cheryl Abbate. McAdams criticized Abbate for saying — in a class discussion on controversial ethical issues, at a Catholic university — that “everybody agrees on [gay rights], and there is no need to discuss it.”

Perhaps surprisingly, no punishment has come to Abatte, who told a student, “you don’t have the right in this class to make homophobic comments” — which appear to include any divergence from the LGBT agenda.

The purge continues in the media, where Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson was suspended for quoting the Bible on marriage, and the show Flip It Forward was cancelled over the pro-life, pro-family, views of Jason and David Benham.

And the list goes on. Civil suits abound to force Christian bakers, florists, photographers, and chapel operators to implement the new definition of marriage. Religious organizations have been forced to shut-down charitable adoption agencies in light of same-sex “marriage” laws. More recently, our nation’s capital removed religious liberty protections to potentially force religious organizations to pay for abortions, as well as make Catholic schools promote LGBT activities.

In England, couples who hold traditional views are often even deemed unfit to foster or adopt children.

The public crusade for unanimity on controversial issues goes beyond sexuality. Last year, a curiously high number of conservative university commencement speakers were disinvited by angry student bodies over their politics.

The attacks can get quite personal. Questioning climate change (despite the scientific community’s backing away from the “hockey stick,” rethinking the thermal absorbency of the ocean, adjusting 20th century temperature readings, massaging data, making a host of failed predictions, and changing the phenomenon’s very name) is to be dubbed the village idiot. Anything short of fully standing behind the media and government’s particular conceptualization of the campus rape problem is declared to be misogyny, as is suggesting solutions contrary to sexual libertinism. To give the benefit of the doubt to police officers dealing with unruly suspects is racist. And to maintain that marriage is what it was universally considered until 2003 is not only bigotry, but high blasphemy.

Once labeled, offenders face peril in their employment and communities. While the First Amendment does not protect one from private discrimination – government officials like Emanuel, Parker, and Reed may want to check their pocket Constitutions, however — nor does society benefit from targeting those whose opinions are merely politically incorrect or unpopular.

So while events in France have rightly energized all sides to cheer the freedom to express unpopular opinions, the West should take the opportunity to ask whether the bare minimum of not executing those who profess unpopular speech is enough. Indeed, we should consider whether it is not still a violation of fundamental liberties for society to deny its citizens the opportunity to use the breath they have been allowed to keep.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/01/18/the-silence-of-the-sheep/